Share this

In his New York Times column David Brooks argues that Republicans have essentially behaved like babies in the debt ceiling fight. They have refused to work with President Obama, who initially offered to make the largest government spending cuts in American history. And Brooks predicts that the balanced budget amendment likely to pass the House this week will have no chance of becoming law.

Will Republicans come to regret not bargaining with President Obama on a deal that would have included about three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in new revenue? Or does the balanced budget amendment show Republicans are serious ones about slashing spending, since Obama has refused to specific what cuts he would make?

UPDATE: President Barack Obama said Tuesday the proposal put forth this morning by the so-called "Gang of Six," a group of both Republican and Democratic senators, is "a very significant step" that he said represents "the potential for bipartisan consensus" on resolving the impasse over cutting the deficit and raising the debt ceiling.

In an appearance in the White House briefing room, Obama urged congressional leaders to embrace the proposal, which contains both significant cuts and a revenue component. He added that the plan proposed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell represents a "failsafe" if agreement on a broader deal cannot be reached.

David Brooks’ column is plagiarized from Richard Darman’s advice to then President George H.W. Bush in 1990: “Break your written promise not to increase taxes. Agree to amorphous spending restraint. Trust the Democrats to actually reduce spending. Believe me that Independent voters will reward you for raising their taxes in a bi-partisan manner. Do not listen to principled Reagan Republicans.”

The problem for David Brooks is that many Americans - and all Republicans in the House and Senate - remember what happened when the Brooks/Darman strategy was followed. The tax hikes were real and painful. A recession followed. And government spending went up faster than it was projected to increase before the “deal.” Spending got worse, not marginally better. And the deficit got worse. And Bush threw away a perfectly good presidency he had inherited from Ronald Reagan who referred to his similar “deal” in 1982 as the biggest mistake of his presidency.

The flaw within the GOP is not that they are acting likebabies. The fundamental flaw is that they are fractured and cannot act in unison. Their inability to come to an internal partisan game plan will have atrickle down effects and fracture the GOP electorate. Moderate Republicans will be driven to the center and tea party Republicans will be driven further to the right.

Coming up to the primary elections, this fractionalization will make for an especially hard fought primary season. In the end, the Republican nominee will not be to the liking of a substantial portion of his/her party. In November 2012, the seed of division planted in the GOP Congress this year will flower into cohesive support for the Republican candidate.

I don’t know if the House Republicans will regret not bargaining with the president but America most certainly will regret their refusal to bargain. They have a real opportunity here to create meaningful legislation that has a prospect of passing and averting this crisis but instead they are choosing to play politics again. (It seems like we have seen this movie before.)

It is clear the Republicans in Congress have negotiated themselves into a corner and the president has called their bluff because it was never their intention to work in a bipartisan way to find a solution, now they don’t know how to extricate themselves from their untenable position.

So they have decided they will make this pie in the sky proposal that they know no one will agree to and then when we are at the 11th hour of this crisis they will opt to again punt the ball and submit Senator McConnell’s proposal so the president and the Democrats have to do all the heavy lifting again and they will say what they always say, it was not what we wanted but the Senate would not take up our Bill. That’s right we have seen this movie before and the name of it is ‘Groundhog Day’.

Reagan made the mistake of believing that tax increases would be dwarfed by spending cuts. Ditto Bush Pere. As demonstrated this week - when a reporter asked the president for a single money saving reform to entitlements he would support, and got no answer - the president, sad to say, simply cannot be trusted to either make a reasonable proposal or to keep his word if he does.

The left is inextricably wedded to huge, intrusive, expensive government, which is why it avers that higher tax rates must form a part -- indeed, most -- of any deficit reduction proposal. Spending alone is the problem; with spending alone rests the solution.

Fifteen years ago, we came with an eyelash of actually securing a balanced budget amendment, until Senator Toricelli, betraying his constituents and breaking a promise he made to secure election, changed his mind and opposed it. Just think: had we done this in 1997, we would not be having this discussion now.

The GOP should not accept weasel words or empty symbolism. It should not buckle to presidential threats -- "increase taxes and borrowing or granny gets it" - nor accept vague, amorphous, and insincere promises of some undefined fiscal discipline at some unspecified point in the future. The people understand - and support -- the simple concept of the BBA: don't spend more than you bring in. If it won't pass this year, make the Dems run on their refusal to act like responsible adults.

The Republicans' unwillingness to compromise on the debt ceiling should come as no surprise. The dependence of their members of Congress on the far right is not limited to tax issues or Grover Norquist. They had already abdicated their responsibility as a governing party.

The Republicans have done an incredibly successful job of their mission: to support the economic interests of the top (in terms of wealth and income) two percent of the American public and convince close to a majority of Americans that they should support the interest of this elite.

How have they done this? By playing on the fantasy that in America anyone can make it, and then consistently repeating a bunch of lies about the economy and the world that lead people to believe that somehow it's all going to work out for their good.

So mesmerizing are their mantras of deceit that many otherwise intelligent people come to believe them, particularly since the Democrats under Obama have accepted these deceptions as the starting off point for political dialogue and compromise. Whatever the short term consequences of overplaying their hands, the Republicans have already won by one simple strategy: articulating your principles and then fighting for them. The Democrats have never learned that basic strategy that fighting for what you believe in inspires confidence, even when the substance is as ridiculous and destructive as the Republican economic agenda.

Rather than being "babies" the Republicans are the true "adults" in the room. It's not responsible to accumulate more and more debt, especially as rapidly as President Obama has chosen to do.

Nor is it responsible to wait until the last minute to begin serious discussions (although Obama's proposal fails to include specifics) and now use the looming debt ceiling deadline as a "threat" to reach an agreement.

Responsible adults know that our government must cut spending; and our leaders must place limits on spending, must responsibly deal with and plan for the impact of the entitlement programs and we must require a balanced budget every year.

Waaah! They're actually not acting like babies, they're acting like spoiled brats, which is worse. If they can't get their way 100 percent, they'll throw a temper tantrum, stamp their feet and throw things.

The congressional Republicans have apparently taken lessons from legislative Republicans in California. The latter could have negotiated major pension reform, regulatory changes and spending limits with Gov. Brown, but among the 15 GOP members of the Senate and 28 members of the Assembly, not a single one would give Brown a vote for his budget proposal in return for significant reforms they claim they want. They're phony posturers, more interested in making political points than making a difference.

When you've got the big-government liberals and the big-government conservatives stomping their feet at your impertinence, you know you're doing something right. As David Brooks acknowledges, "The Democratic offers were slippery, and President Obama didn’t put them in writing."

No kidding. Taxpayers are always promised cuts in the out-years, and any graph of the national debt over the past 30 years will show you how well those work.

And remember: We've heard a lot about $2 trillion cuts. Brooks mentions a $3 trillion cut. Sounds like a lot of money. But all of that is a cut in a federal budget currently projected to be $46 trillion over the next decade, so the negotiators are claiming a massive 4 to 6 percent budget cut. But of course the budget is underestimated; Larry Lindsey recently noted that normalization of interest rates, overestimated growth rates, and underestimated Obamacare costs all mean that the ten-year budget will be higher than projected. So the unspecified cuts -- that may never materialize anyway -- would be against an even higher baseline.

There's no easy solution here, given Congress's propensity to spend and the domination of the budget process by interest groups, not taxpayers. But the tea party Republicans are beginning to understand how the game is played and are trying not to get rolled again.

Republicans should take yes for an answer, pass the grand bargain, and get to work on job creation lest they become as unemployed as their constituents. Running up the interest rates then campaigning agsinst the Obams economy will not sit well with voters, especially swing voters.

Republicans succeeded in turning a routine increase in the debt ceiling necessitated by unfunded wars and tax cuts into a spending debate even though Republicans put most of the charges on our national credit card. By pushing President Obama and Democratic leaders to negotiate a 3 to 1 spending cuts to revenues grand bargain that brings down debt, Republicans proved that elections have consequences. I'm not fond of those consequences because Main Street gave too much, while oil companies and outsources gave too little, but Republicans should be rejoicing in their success at legislating austerity and protecting corporate libertarians. No deal will ever be better than this.

David Brooks is acting like a baby but what can you expect from someone who literally judges a candidate for president by the crease in his pants leg. As Brooks may know the only specific plan the president has proposed failed in the Senate 97-Zip.

The balance budget amendment will certainly do better than that. Being born in Canada, perhaps Mr. Brooks does not understand that the Congress cannot pass speeches or teleprompter pronouncements. The president has no proposal on the table.

The Republicans in Congress have lost all touch with reality. It can only be hoped that reasonable Republicans throughout the country, practical people like my late parents, throw these ideologues out and replace them with responsible adults who are concerned about the interests of the United States, not just with their own irrational dogma. I also hope, of course, that Democrats and independents return the Democrats to power in 2012, so we can get the country moving again.

Excuse me but what spending cuts did President Obama offer? What cuts did he propose? Anyone? Anyone? [sound of crickets].

David Brooks may think of himself as a man of the right but he’s missed the train as far as the debt ceiling is concerned. The participants in the Biden talks have made it clear that the White House’s agenda for solving the debt crisis is more spending, higher taxes and no restraint - ever. I’m not really sure how Brooks - or anyone else for that matter - can conclude otherwise.

The GOP’s Cut, Cap and Balance Act is still the only serious plan, the only plan on paper, in the form of legislation - which is, after all, what it’s really all about - that anyone, Democrat or Republican, have put forward. It cuts spending, caps expenditures and provides that a balanced budget amendment be sent to the states for ratification before the debt ceiling can be raised. Brooks’ narrative has it backwards: The people opposed to cut, cap and balance - which includes President Obama by the way - are the ones who are not serious about spending reform and who are behaving like children..

The problems with crediting the president's "proposal" as the middle ground has numerous problems.

First, he has put nothing on paper that shows real cuts. In fact, the only budget he has ever put on paper for 2012 is an increase in the deficit. Second, 10 year plan cuts are fictions and most of us know it. Spending now is real, $2.4 trillion in debt is real - POTUS' cuts are a fiction he plans to rewrite as soon as he can.

Third, the fact is the president has been every bit as insistent on "his way or the highway," threatening to veto a short term increase because it hurts his political plans. His stance has forced the GOP to hold it's ground as well.

Finally, this question needs to be bifurcated. Yes, the GOP nominee may have to explain this. And the GOP challenges in key senate races might suffer. But the House members are in fact following their districts, so regret? Doubt it.

Republicans are serious about cutting spending, and they know that the tax hikes Democrats demand are lasting - they’re in effect until they’re affirmatively changed in the future - while spending cuts expire every year, as the next federal budget can simply “restore” the cuts, for which there will be ample political pressure. Any spending cuts-for-tax-hikes trade always involves lasting taxes and temporary cuts, and Republicans are just not going to fall for that one again.

Brooks and many others have pointed out that the Republicans in the House have turned their back on a great deal, not just for the GOP but for the nation. They have done this because the most far right of the GOP House members care more about a misunderstood ideological stance than they do about the economic health of the nation - and about the political health of the party.

And they have done this because Majority Leader Cantor has bowed down before them in a naked push for his own personal power rather than leading them to a better deal. Speaker Boehner was on the right track -hard for me to admit - but he is not a strong enough leader (or at least has not yet shown himself to be a strong enough leader) to get his troops to follow.

Republicans made an enormous mistake in opposing President Obama's proposal. There is not just one accepted view of conservatism. There are many debates among conservatives about what are the best policies.

However, in this situation some conservatives are dictating to everyone else that there is only one acceptable position (i.e., no revenue increases in a budget deal). This policy has not been consistently followed in the past. For example, President Reagan and many congressional conservative Republicans accepted tax increases in the Social Security and budget deals of the 1980s. Republican leaders should have made the case that there would be more conservative policy gains from the big budget deal than from the the much smaller deal that will probably be enacted.

We don’t know what goes on behind the closed doors of the negotiating chambers, but it has also been reported that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the White House to protest cuts in entitlements, freezes in domestic spending, and lower tax rates.

If these reports are correct, then Democrats are responsible for shelving the largest spending cuts in history. What is clear is that practically all candidates elected to Congress in 2010 ran on a platform of cutting spending and keeping taxes low. The Republicans have produced their spending cuts - where are those of President Obama and the House and Senate Democrats? Republicans will be sorry in 2012 if they break their no tax increase pledge to voters.

The balanced budget amendment is a terrible distraction at this point, but the fact is that the President has never seriously offered budget cuts. He has offered promises of unspecified future cuts, in return for tax increases now.

Look at it this way: Suppose the Republicans had offered to cut spending now, and agreed to unspecified tax increases to be enacted by a future congress down the road: Would the President have taken that deal? I don't think so either.

I think the country will thank the Republicans for their intransigence. After all, if they had gone along with President Obama we would have seen large cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other essential programs. Thankfully one party was prepared to stand up for its principles.

We need to be clear about the motivation of GOP extremists. They hate Obama and want to make sure he gets no credit for any settlement. They will go to any lengths to undermine him - including putting the country's economic fortunes at severe risk. They also want to dismantle much of what the federal government does.

Many grassroots tea partiers, and a number of elite anti-government advocacy groups like Americans For Prosperity and the Club for Growth and Norquist's operation are part of this hate Obama, dismantle the federal government operation. They see a debt-ceiling induced crisis as positive, in the same way that Leninist revolutionaries used to see economic crises as positive.

"Deals" are exactly what today's right-wing extemists, many of whom got elected to Congress, do not want. Brooks speaks for frustrated moderate GOP opinion - as does Frum - but they have no juice in the currently radicalized party. They are good for tut-tutting editorials in the New York Times, and not much more.

Most limited government conservative Republicans generally dismiss any analysis by Brooks, but that said, why would an elected leader break his or her pledge not to raise taxes based on a promise from this president that he will cut spending?

Can someone please introduce me to one person who believes that this president - who has presented no specifics, no plans, not even one hint of a spending cut - will ever consider reducing federal spending? The president has a unique way of saying “I’ll look at”, “I’ll consider”, “I’m open to” - but in the end he does nothing more than spend other people’s money.

This is not the first time a grand bargain has been struck between the legislative and executive branches of government. Funny thing; the tax increases always engage right away (sometimes retroactively to January 1), but the spending cuts never seem to happen. Never. They seem to be left on the side of the road after each election because one Congress cannot bind another Congress - and we should not have a balanced budget amendment?

The news media is framing this debate as the Republicans being intractable on tax hikes, when, in fact, the president should be thankful that they are even open to raising the debt ceiling. The president’s reckless spending habits have brought us to this brink; this is a disaster of his making and his alone - not the taxpayer’s ability to pay taxes.

So we must go back to my original point - why would an elected leader break a promise to his or her constituents for a promise that will never be kept?

David Brooks has it exactly right. On the particulars, he is right that Republicans will regret their refusal to take "yes" for an answer. To blame the Obama negotiating strategy for that is, as my students might say, lame. Brooks's larger point is more important.

The radical Republicans who blocked this deal cannot be called conservatives usual sense. They have no patience with democratic processes. They want to have it all, now, or else. May they hold their collective breath until they turn blue . . .

They're not acting like babies at all. They're acting like Republicans in a divided caucus: on the one hand, the do nothings and the know nothings led by nose by the tea party apparatus, and on the other hand, Speaker John Boehner, who is a solid institutionalist and legislative steward who is trying to orchestrate a deal that keeps the government functioning.

Until the elections of 2012 (Presidency, Senate and House) we will not know who the real winners and losers are of the 2011 debt ceiling debates.

Whose base is more angry? What do independents really think? Who wins reelection and who loses because of how they vote? We can speculate all we want now, until something finally happens and the American public finally reacts. It's just a game of posturing by both sides.

David Brooks has been right about this aspect of current House members all along. And, of course, I've been right even longer (and so have many other people; it's not an exclusive story.) These Republicans are extremists in every sense of the word. Brooks simply articulates it for those who read him. They can't say anything but "no" and have backed themselves in a corner because of it.

Ken FeltmanPast president; International Association of Political Consultants :

Where is President Obama's plan? The only thing close to an Obama plan did not get a single vote - Democratic or Republican - in the Senate. The Republicans are not covering themselves with glory but neither are the Democrats. The bickering, posturing and whining are exactly why the public is fed up with Washington.

Many Republicans believe that their rigid stance on the budget is a sign that they are right. That Obama is willing to compromise indicates that he is not confident in his position.

Unfortunately for the GOP, the public endorses a balanced approach to the budget that includes both new revenue and spending reductions. As Ezra Klein pointed out today, the balanced budget amendment is a easy campaign slogan but does not indicate a real willingness to work through the difficult budget issues.

I have a 4 year old daughter who has a better comprehension of consequences than House GOP members.

There are ways to balance the budget other than hurting the weakest among us. Negotiation and compromise are bedrocks of our republic. Pledges are pure politics and they tie the hands of those who sign. Are they being babies? Yes, big babies. For some this tantrum will get them sent to political time out. Hopefully for good.

In choosing former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, President Barack Obama bypassed consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren. Relations between Warren, the bureau’s architect, and congressional Republicans soured quickly. For many of President Obama’s liberal critics, Warren became a litmus test of his administration’s unwillingness to take on Wall Street.

Was the White House smart to jettison Warren? And would she be a strong candidate to challenge Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in 2012, a race she seems to be considering?

I give Elizabeth Warren credit for transparency: she is a committed liberal who distrusts the integrity and efficiency of capital markets, and she is not shy about it. But if the CFPB is meant to be an arbiter between consumer and market interests, it needs a leader with a less partisan agenda.

As for the Massachusetts race, Warren will run and she will excite the blogosphere and the Democratic donor base. Her problem is that she will be facing Scott Brown, the single most gifted politician to emerge in the last several cycles, and the Republicans' most underrated prospect for 2016. The test should actually strengthen his skills.

President Obama does not know how to do anything but capitulate. Elizabeth Warren was the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and was the best candidate to head it. Obama could have used the congressional vacation time to appoint her without confirmation being needed.

But Obama is a wimp, and because the Republicans know that, they continue to escalate their demands on every front, knowing that Obama will eventually give in. But then again, Obama has little to fear from his disappointed liberal supporters as long as they take the political position that no matter what he does, he will get their support, out of fear that any Republican will be considerably worse.

None of the polls that I have seen from Massachusetts show Scott Brown with much more than 50% of the vote. The incumbent is vulnerable but not easy to beat so Democrats must find a strong candidate. The Democratic candidate needs to recapture the blue collar workers and union members who voted for Brown in 2010. These blue collar voters live in places like South Boston and the small cities like Quincy and Revere that surround Boston.

If Elizabeth Warren runs she must show these stray Democrats that Wall Street not the federal government is the enemy of the working families who have lost their jobs and then their homes in the wake of a depression caused by big business and bad boy bankers and billionaires.

While I very much enjoy the intra-party sniping among Democrats over Elizabeth Warren, this is a truly inside baseball issue.

As for the Senate seat, while liberals may gush about how great it is that Warren set up a new government bureaucracy and thus managed to make the federal government even bigger and more annoying, blame for the agency’s every misstep will be gleefully placed on her doorstep should she choose that suicide run against Sen. Scott Brown.

Cordray has potential to be a strong leader for the CFPB, but passing over Warren reflects the president’s predilection for the pre-emptive concession. The president vows to wage a fierce battle against Republicans and the banking lobby that have promised to stop any nominee unless the Bureau is neutered.

Instead of waging that battle with a nominee like Elizabeth Warren, who has already earned the support of millions of Americans, the president has chosen to wage it with a strong nominee that no one, outside of experts, has heard of. Go figure.

I think this demonstrates that Obama does not stick by his friends. His critics on the left will see Warren's departure as a cynical attempt to cultivate Wall Street. That Cordray sees eye-to-eye with Obama gets the president nothing - from either allies or adversaries. Republicans in the Senate will make certain the agency achieved little until it is restructured after the election.

I am not sure Warren will succeed as a political candidate. She does not appear to be someone who enjoys pressing the flesh. And she will be up against a "natural" in Scott Brown.

Warren would have been a wonderful choice to chair the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But there are only so many fights an administration can have a one time. Raising the debt ceiling takes top priority, and until that is completed the administration should not tackle other controversial matters.

Should she run for the Senate, she would be an underdog but a terrific candidate. A woman, strong on issues, articulate and I believe able to raise the kind of money to compete with Sen. Brown.

Elizabeth Warren is a decent, sincere and earnest person, which means she probably cannot make it in any run for political office. She is also about as wrong-headed about the economics of bankruptcy law as anyone could be, and that makes her a poor choice to run consumer debt markets regulation.

That is why the president was right to sidestep her when choosing a new head of the CFPB. Doing otherwise not only would have been a policy nightmare, but would have been a lightning rod for criticism from moderates at a time when the president is trying to portray himself as a moderate. That won't work, by the way, but it would be even harder to pull that image transformation off with Warren at his side.

The handwriting about Professor Warren’s dim confirmation prospects was on the wall a year ago. Recall that it was a Democrat, former Sen. Chris Dodd, that wrote it. The ’10 elections and the GOP pick-up of seats in the Senate sealed her fate. It is regrettable that it took the administration this long to propose an alternative.

Published reports had it that several credible candidates to lead the CFPB deferred to Ms. Warren’s persistent hopes of being nominated. Because of the unnecessary delay, it will be many months before the CFPB has a director. Meanwhile, CFPB hits the ground this Thursday not running … not stumbling … but in a heap of well-intended recruits who, because there is no director of the agency in place, are incapable of carrying out its mission.

As for Ms. Warren’s senatorial prospects in Massachusetts, she may be surprised to learn that, unlike the prospects for the CFPB post that deferred to her longing for the job, three qualified candidates have lined up on the Democratic side to challenge Sen. Brown.

Unless she can persuade them to drop out of the race to make way for her, she faces a raucous primary fight to win the Democratic nod. One of the candidates is self-funded. I presume Ms. Warren is not, although she could raise substantial funds from the progressive base that holds her in high esteem.

Sen. Brown, meanwhile, sits on high approval ratings and a war chest in the neighborhood of $10 million.

All in, my guess is that Ms. Warren takes a pass on a highly problematic Senate race here in Massachusetts. It is clear, however, that she enjoys the spotlight and will seek it out in some other capacity before too long.

The problem with Elizabeth Warren, in the eyes of many Republicans, is that she had the temerity to suggest that there needed to be stronger government oversight, protection really, for consumers when it comes to the actions of big banks -- pure and simple.

Not only was she pressured to step down, whenever she did appear in front of the House Financial Services it was more of an inquisition than a hearing.

So, yes, given that environment the Administration had no choice, lest she be pilloried in a confirmation process.

As for as her political future, Scott Brown has been very nimble in positioning himself as a 'reasonable moderate' and Massachusetts is a complex state politically. That said, if she chooses to run she is quick on her feet and has a compelling message as a "citizen crusader" for the people fighting the banks and mortgage companies.

And if she were to win, on that issue alone, she would be a welcome change to "business as usual" in the United State Senate.

This is a case where President Obama has once again ducked a battle with conservatives. He seems to relish taking on the progressive wing of the party, taunting them with the prospect of President Romney.

Of course the Washington establishment loves it when he kicks progressives, since they view it as statesmanship to spit on people without money and power. Given the love and money that this decision buys him with establishment media and corporate contributors, dumping Warren may well have been a smart political move for him. He will just have to get by with a somewhat lower turnout from his base.

Elizabeth Warren will be an outstanding candidate for Senate in Massachusetts. She is sharp-witted and plain spoken. She is well-known in the state. Brown will have a very difficult time holding the seat if she runs.

I can't say much about Professor Warren, but I can say you'd be hard-pressed to find a brighter, more industrious, more creative, or more honest public servant than Richard Cordray. That alone is enough to justify the decision.

The question is what would have been gained by nominating her when she was certain not to be approved by Congress. With the debt ceiling impasse still unresolved, what chips does the president have to get her through -- assuming Republicans would even let the nomination come to a vote? Sometimes it is worth losing a battle in the short run in order to make a statement, but as appealing as she would be in that job, he can make a much stronger statement by winning the debt ceiling battle. In this environment, therefore, I cannot fault the president.

As a Massachusetts resident, I would find her candidacy for the Senate to be truly exciting. She is so articulate, energetic, and on the right side of so many issues that affect voters directly, I can imagine she would be a formidable candidate. And if she replaces Scott Brown, not only would we have a worthy successor to Ted Kennedy, but it would be poetic justice for the Republican and conservative Democrats in the Senate to be forced to "welcome" her as a colleague.

It was the dumbest thing Obama could have done as it emboldens his Republican opponents with the notion they can successfully obstruct the president's proposed appointees and announced policies any time they please. This hardly fills Democrats with much confidence that Obama will stand firm on the upcoming debt ceiling fight. Looks like The Hope Express the president has skillfully engineered is officially off the rails. And it's a damn shame.

Ken FeltmanPast president; International Association of Political Consultants :

Elizabeth Warren was never going to be popular with congressional Republicans but her brusque treatment of members of Congress doomed her. The administration realized that she was too controversial.

But because Warren whet the appetite of some senators and anti-regulatory groups, Richard Cordray can expect a tough confirmation than the White House seems to appreciate. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is very much of Warren's design. The Cordray confirmation may be very much a product of Warren's confrontational and dismissive personality.

Elizabeth Warren was not going to be confirmed, and she’ll likely run for Senate from Massachusetts instead. The bigger question is whether Republicans would accept Ronald Reagan if he were nominated, since they are committed to destroying the agency before it gets started in helping American citizens regain some footing with the modern day robber barons (Republicans hate the precedent of effective government, and fear the agency will quickly become too popular to kill with voters.)

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.